Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Big States, Big Deal

By Chris Suellentrop March 12, 2008 5:37 pmMarch 12, 2008 5:37 pm

The argument that Hillary Clinton “would be a stronger general-election nominee [because] she has done better in the big state primaries” is “a specious argument,” says “Richelieu,” the pseudonymous Republican strategist who blogs for The Weekly Standard. He explains:

Primary results in a given state do not really have much to do with general election results in that state. In fact, a private pollster I trust dropped by the confessional this am — he’s client number 8, but that’s another story — and passed along a brand new poll of an important mid-sized swing state. It shows McCain and Obama essentially tied, with both in the low 40’s. But McCain leads HRC in the same state by 7 points. Go Hillary, go!

Go Richelieu, go! “Primary results in a given state do not really have much to do with general election results in that state.” No kidding! And since this applies so handsomely to just about every Obama win in classically red states, we’re starting to get a clear picture of just who the republicans would rather run against in the fall. Look for the following package, carefully calibrated to the Reagan democrats of yore, those working class stiffs in northern and midwest states, often catholics, who’ve been leaning Hillary: Obama is big government liberal, foreign policy softy, a Kerry with better hair and loftier, pie in the sky dreams, whose bubble head, Volvo driving supporters believe you’re all a bunch of uneducated goons who “don’t read the Economist and couldn’t understand it” anyway (actual quote from an Obama supporter). And, oh yeah, you didn’t hear it from us but, he’s black.

Big states may get the attention but shouldn’t every vote and every state matter? Maybe people in the big states won’t turn out as well for the general election but the small states turn out a huge populace. Stop writing off people because they aren’t in a “big” enough state. Obama has won more states than Clinton, who cares if the size of the state if she is only going to divide people and cause ill feelings? Her comments on small states have really angered and hurt a lot of people, me included.

Let’s see if Obama can cut loose from Senatorial courtesy and admiration of McCain’s heroism to see if he can call him on his likely strategy: finessing his relationship with Bush while parlaying his tough guy persona into foreign policy acumen.

There is only one way to do this: bluntly. Obama has to say: “Mr. McCain, you began as and have remained a cheerleader for the Iraq quagmire. You do not deserve the American people’s confidence in forging a way out.”

On Bush, he should say: “Americans don’t want more leaders like George W. Bush. If you are going to carry his banner, we have to reject you”. Meanwhile, he could play the tape over and over again of McCain lifting his damaged left arm in a pitiful kidney embrace of our President, while his face is stooped in supplication.

The Republicans will of course attack first, and use their slick advertising types to triangulate McCain and Bush’s mutual enabling. I love the Standard’s phrase, which comes from K Street: “and understanding of Bush’s failure that is not self discrediting”.The people are getting hipper, though- it didn’t work with Penn and Hillary, and it won’t work with McCain’s suits from the Republican Committee either. We are not the brightest evaluators of Presidential talent, but this time we seem to be waking up.

And the idea that only Hillary Clinton could carry California, New York or any of the other reliably blue states she has in her column is a “fairy tale” indeed. The poll here confirms the numbers I’ve been seeing all season long: Barack Obama scores much better against John McCain than does HRC. Of course, the longer that Mrs. Clinton throws the kitchen sink at Sen. Obama, polls are showing both of them doing worse against Sen. McCain. Now that Rush Limbaugh has really gotten into the thick of things, urging his listeners to contribute to and vote for Mrs. Clinton we have a fine mess (MSNBC estimated 25% of HRC’s Miss. votes were Republicans). If her intention is to give herself another run in 2012, she’s doing a great job. But I have to hope that the Super Delegates can see through the muck & mire and support Sen. Obama, the leader in pledged delegates, popular vote and number of states.

I don’t care how Obama and his campaigns spins this, most of the states he has won don’t matter much to democrats. Does he really believe that somehow Wyoming and Missisippi and Idaho and Utah are going to vote democratic if he is the nominee in November. I know he thinks he can walk on water among other stuff, but give me some credit here.

Many of the states that Hillary has won are swing states. Ohio, California (with McCain views on immigration he could easily win the Latino vote and independents), Florida.

Yes Obama has won more states, but you have to be a crazy democrat high on some powerful medication to believe that a man who was voted the most liberal democrat in the Senate could win them against a republican with a great record for reaching across party line and fighting against Washington as Usual. All the things that Obama says he wants to do. Sorry Obama, but McCain beat you to the punch.

So Hillary has a case as to why she is more electable. Again if she wins all the States that Carrie won in 2004 and win Ohio she is our new President. I don’t know how much clearer this could be to Obama but she is more electable. Period.

Democrats are going to come out for the Democratic candidate, so the Clinton camp’s argument doesn’t wash. The big states where she won were bastions of machine politics whose ward heelers are beholden to her and her crew. So it’s no surprise she won those states. The same machines are going to turn out for Obama. Obama’s ability to win independent and new voters is what will win the presidency for the Democrats, not a clueless and desparate candidate lost in the 90s. If her people jimmy the convention, you can bet the new voters will stay home and the independents will go elsewhere. And they may never come back to the Democratic party.

Try making the comparison between big state primaries and small state caucuses. The former is a test of the breadth of appeal, the latter more a test of the intensity of the appeal to certain sub-groups. You can’t win the general without both.

I am not surprised that a Republican is in favor of the Democrats doing the one thing which could keep the GOP “southern strategy” alive and kicking for one more cycle. the pseudonymous “Richelieu” also forgets to point out that this far in advance polled match ups mean very little. But, I am resigned to Obama getting the nod and then going down in massive defeat because of incipient racism and fear of the unfamiliar in the U.S. We may not like it, may correctly view it as hopelessly out of date; but it is there and it will rear its ugly head on election day. No one has ever even dared to address my hypothesis that most white male Republicans are living with a potential Hillary voter in their bedroom and they are secretly worried as hell about it. Or the fact that Obama’s people count Republican votes for their guy as sincere expresseions of voter’s change of heart while Republican votes for Hillary are just the result of Rush Limbaugh trying to influence our primaries. I guess this is the new politics, “Everything the opposition does is abominable. Everything we do is blessed by heaven.” Now just how is that different from the old Politics?

From time to time, I get the unsettling feeling that conservatives–like those who inhabit the venues of the Weekly Standard–have infilatrated the campaign staffs of the democratic candidates. What was the one thing the hapless GOP needed at this precise moment in history just as they were about to be relegated into minority status? A democratic party bitterly divided over the issues of race, gender and war. And suddenly, Voila! They get just what they want from a pathetically gullible and selfish democratic electorate coupled with a mainstream media that seems to be taking steno from the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh.

I fully agree, and I wonder why Obama has not pointed that out already. The fact that Clinton squeaks out a win over Obama in Texas does not change the fact that Texas is probably going to be Republican any more than her somewhat bigger win in California would mean that Obama would lose the state to McCain. What is important is how many of these big states will go democrat. The only valid aspect to Clinton’s argument would seem to be the point that democrats in the states she won might be more enthusiastic to vote in the general election than they would be for Obama, thus encreasing the chances that Democrats will win those states. Still, I think it is really hard to determine how much truth there is in such a claim and thus is slender reed upon which to ask the superdelegates to overturn Obama’s lead in delegates.

That Clinton has taken the fairly large and conservative states (and largely only those) suggest not that people would choose Clinton over McCain, but most likely suggest that conservatives in those states would choose the more conservative candidate over the less. In this case, those states would most likely choose McCain.

Further, those states that Clinton took also suggest that identity politics might be an important choice in those states and if that’s the case, an old white man will likely fare better than a woman or a black man.

Clinton arguement weak? Hogwash. As a former staffer in a battleground state for Kerry/Edwards in the general election in 2004, I know all to well the difference between the way the electorate votes in the primary and the general. When all of the hulabaloo dies down and dems are locked in a fight against repubs come summer, what will become clear is we have a moderate dem, strong on healthcare, with a strong understanding on the economy and realistic solutions for expanding the middle class against a really nice guy, full of charisma who just hasnt had enough time on the earth yet to effect any significant change on any system he has had control over.

People have been lamenting how soft the media has been towards Obama until recently — thanks to SNL. But I have yet to read true description of HRC’s experience in foreign policy. Why isn’t media exploring that since her claim to being a better commander in chief is her “experience.” What exactly is this experience? All I keep hearing from her and her surrogates (without much challenge from the media) is her “35 years” of experience. What exactly is that? Visiting foreign countries as a first lady and knowing who is who in the foreign government is not exactly a hefty foreign policy experience. What is also missing in all the discussion (or lack thereof) of her experience is that this current government had individuals with extensive experience. We all know what good it did to this country…

Anyone who does not consider that something publicly published in The Weekly Standard might be crafted for political purposes is a fool.

I would take McCain vs Obama polls with several large grains of salt. The sad fact is most people are very ill informed, I dare say large % of those supporting Obama don’t have any idea that he is the most liberal voting member of the Senate, they probably think Hillary is more liberal. But rest assured that the Republicans will not let them go into November without hearing about it. The reality is that HRC’s votes are smaller right now yes, but almost certainly much more solid than Obama’s. Anyone disposed to hating Hillary already got there long ago. Obama may be like Dukakis or Kerry, this is so repetitive it’s almost comic — a candidate that Dem primary voters pick in part because he’s More electable,” but that opinion is mostly because they are not tested yet. Then when the Republicans get done putting them through the wringer of the general election campaign, everyone will blame it on the candidate not knowing how to campaign, and not accept that the signs were there all along but they willfully ignored them in the primaries. “This time it will be different” I’m sure

This “big state, small state” nonsense is a painful reminder that we ought to have ditched the electoral college — an 18th Century anachronism — back in 2001. In a real democracy, every vote would count.

The answer is simple. All of Hillary,s supporters will vote for Obama over Mccain. Many Obama supporters will not vote for Hillary including me my girlfriend and many of my friends. Because of swing voters and first time voters going for Obama and creating record turnouts in the primarys, Obama will beat Mccain. Because of polorization and the fact that Hillary is polorizing means she will loose in the middle to Mccain and he would take the nomination. He beats her on experience, He beats her with independents and unlike Obama, Mccain will use the kitchen sink on her….Monica, whitewater, hsu, liberalism, Nafta ect. ect. ect.

Here’s my analysis. The real question for Democrats is which Democratic candidate will do better in the following 12 states–Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Wisconsin,Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas and New Hampshire.

These are the only true “swing” states. I think Clinton is the stronger candidate in 7 of these 12 states–Colorado,New Mexico and Nevada because of Hispanic voters; Ohio and West Virginia because of blue collar white voters; Florida because of Hispanic, Jewish and senior citizens and Arkansas because of her home state ties.

I see Obama as being stronger in 3 states–Wisconsin, Iowa and Virginia. I rate Missouri and New Hampshire a tie.

6 other states that are sometimes called “swing” states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon have become more and more Democratic in presidential elections and both Obama and Clinton should win them.

Either Democrat should easily won the following 1l “blue” states–Hawaii, California, New York, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Delaware, and Illinois.

I believe Obama would do better than Clinton in 15 of these “red” states–Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.

Clinton would do better in 6 of these states–Arizona,
Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.

But this really doesn’t matter, because neither one will win these 21 “red” states.

So, in my analysis, Clinton is the stronger candidate because she will do better in 7 of the 12 true swing
states compared to just 3 for Obama.

The big state small state argument is absurd. When election time comes, democrats are going to vote for democrats in the BIG states, and small states. The real test in SWING states will be appealing to independents, and Barack Obama has shown that he does this much more effectively than HRC could ever HOPE for.

alot of people say this race should be over by now and their correct it should be the problem is barack can’t close the deal-we know why hillary can’t because the majority of blacks(except for me and a few others) are supporting barack to degree that it would seem it’s a “RACE” thing-irregardless of bill’s misstatements or whatever the clintons were highly regarded in the black community-but since soooooooo many non-blacks have jumped on the obama train he should not be losing the BIG STATES-don’t say if he’s the nominee he will win them-the change candidate should be wining them now

Why would Republicans be voting for HRC in Democratic primaries unless they know that they can more readily defeat her in the general election. They’re sure that Obama will win if he is nominated, and they are sure that they will win if HRC is nominated. Republicans should not be allowed to infiltrate the Democratic nominating process. That allows them to hand-pick their adversary —- not a very Democratic way of choosing a President.

What's Next

The Thread is an in-depth look at how the major news events and controversies of the day are being viewed and debated across the online spectrum. Compiled by Peter Catapano, an editor in The Times’s Opinion section, the Thread is published every Saturday in response to breaking news.